Reply to THIS thread
Start a NEW Talkback Thread
Talkback Home

Employment Land Required - Trevor Maroney (16th Jul 2014 - 10:57:28) The Business Section of the Bramshott & Liphook Parish Plan has been updated and added to the News Page at www.liphookplan.co.uk. One of its key findings is the need for more local job opportunities to keep pace with the planned growth in housing. This means identifying another employment site in or bordering the village close to the A3. If any landowner has a suitable site would they please let me know? Thank you. Chairman BLPP

Re: Employment Land Required - Grant (16th Jul 2014 - 14:25:54) Trevor, there is a site adjacent to the southbound petrol station on the A3. It has permission for a 40 bed hotel and food out let. On the market with CGW Haslemere. The permission may have lapsed as I dealt with the planning application approx. 3-4 years ago.

Re: Employment Land Required - anne (17th Jul 2014 - 11:45:19) Not sure what sort of site you are looking for but it seems a pity that the ground which I think is Bleaches yard has derelect buildings and area opposite Countrywide which if tidied up could perhaps be a business unit for someone and enhance the area and give employment. I think this area years ago was used for several businesses seems a shame that cannot be used especially as it is not to near housing and some businesses are there already.

Re: Employment Land Required - S (17th Jul 2014 - 14:15:50) I am glad that Anne has raised the issue of the empty business space already existing in Liphook that may be looked into. I am not 100% familiar with the details of the Bramshott and Liphook Parish Plan, but perhaps there has been some consideration within it for sustainable development and the principles of environmental economics. Having read the business section of the plan, I couldn't find any mention of these issues or of any of the relevant economic / planning tools that may assist in reaching the goals set out. I am glad to see that the empty business properties within the parish have been listed, and that there is a recommendation to encourage businesses into these properties, as well as making the business parks in the station area more accessible. However, I couldn't find any time plan or list of prioritisation for the recommendations that have been set out. Since you are actively looking for land that can be used for new business development, does this mean that the building of new business properties is being put at a higher priority than redeveloping those that already exist? It is a common mistake in urban planning to seek out growth as an answer to all economic problems, instead of improving what already exists. While I do not personally agree that an obsession with growth is the correct way to approach planning at all, it is obvious that population growth is going to happen in Liphook, what with the numerous housing applications in the pipeline, and the proposed health centre etc. (which seems to me to be a 'bribe' to encourage the town not to object to the housing applications, much as the Millennium Hall was a bribe for Sainsburys, which later expanded far larger than the original application had allowed). I would really hope that before encouraging any new build business properties in the parish, the existing properties could be redeveloped and properly utilised. Obviously this may not be so easy and clean-cut as building from scratch, but suburban sprawl is a serious issue that is becoming greater across the country as more new build housing is happening. We live in an area with a great wealth of nature and wild spaces, and being located in the gateway to the South Downs National Park, now is the time to consider what Liphook should look like in the long-term. Another recommendation mentioned within the business plan is the idea to market Liphook for tourist activities for those visiting the National Park. This seems like a small mention in the plan, but for tourists (and obviously appreciated by locals too), the whole look and feel of a town is what can make it an appealing destination. Every planning move and decision should be made with this goal of Liphook as an appealing destination in mind. Liphook in Bloom do an excellent job of making the town look great every year, but do we really want to encourage suburban sprawl with these new developments when we could instead be investing in what is already here? I think the priority should be with filling in the gaps that exist in the town as it already stands. Improve the roads and access to existing business parks that were not built for lorries, make the derelict buildings into appealing office space, and make sure the urban area we already have is dense and full of businesses that are within walking distance of each other. The principle of Smart Growth has come out of the US in the last years, and this is about making what already exists into be best it can be before adding more. Turning town centres back into centres of the community, instead of sprawling out into the countryside, which could be maintained for it's own value. This article succinctly embodies the principles Jon Reeds on Smart Growth, and there is a large amount of published literature on this tool and others that are similarly useful. One article that outlines the costs and benefits of Smart Growth: Smart Growth: A Prescription for Livable Cities Low density suburban growth / sprawl can mean: - lack of public transport options - dependence on the use of cars - costly infrastructure (new roads, sewers, water pipes) - not to mention the environmental losses to land and wildlife By instead 'filling in the gaps' in the urban area we already have, and developing brownfield sites, we can change the atmosphere of the whole town as being more lively, condensed, having a real 'hub' and encouraging a more connected community. The Station Road area could certainly use this kind of regeneration, and quite honestly I think it would be a disgrace if more new-build business space was created before paying attention to the Station area. Maybe you can address these concerns and whether sustainable development has been considered while drawing up the parish plan: I think it is easy to assume someone else is responsible for worrying about sustainable development and the improvements it can bring to the community, when actually it should be someone on everyone's mind whenever in a decision making role within planning. Perhaps some other economic tools have been used while drawing up the Parish Plan? The website acknowledges the important truth that 'failing to plan is planning to fail', but I couldn't find much more detail about what tools have been used to approach the planning?

Re: Employment Land Required - liz (17th Jul 2014 - 16:19:50) S I for one certainly wish you were on the EHDC and/or South Downs National Parks planning committees!

Re: Employment Land Required - ellie (17th Jul 2014 - 16:38:02) unless the planning laws are changed to allow refusal of the big urban sprawl, then whichever developer is first in getting their plans through at the moment will succeed, as the figure of 175 houses for Liphook is not suddenly going to be withdrawn, and brownfield infill will not fulfill those numbers. Besides it would be years before small developments of 2-3, 3-4 houses would be built. Economics is at the heart of it, not joined up planning I agree. Until the government withdraw their support for the large house builders and their schemes this state of affairs will carry on. There is a presumption in planning in favour of development.

Reply to THIS thread
Talkback Home